TrutherGirls Fan T-Shirts: thetruthergirls.spreadshirt.com A meta-analysis that looked at vitamin and mineral content of produce, as well as levels of pesticides and antibiotic resistant bacteria concluded that organic food was no better than conventional. There were a lot of problems with this study. The meta-analysis looked at studies that had different criteria for what they termed 'organic'. I think this is one of the biggest problems. One of the co-authors has been found to have had ties to Cargill and the tobacco industry: www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15783 The study was limited to looking at produce and meat, which is understandable because it limits the number of variables. It did not examine the presence of GMOs or antibiotics. It also did not look much at health outcomes or at effects on the environment. Links for articles in this video: www.eufic.org/page/en/show/latest-science-news/fftid/no-difference-nutritional-value-organic-vs-conventional-foods-systematic-review/ ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/680.full.pdf+html shop.karitex.com/blogs/news/5863649-organic-vs-conventional-what-is-the-difference news.discovery.com/earth/organic-vs-conventional-food-health-120903.html www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/no-health-benefits-from-organic-food/ www.naturalnews.com/037065_organic_foods_mainstream_media_psyop.html www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/is-organic-food-healthy_n_1881046.html?ref=topbar www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/22/farmers-obesity-livestock-antibiotics-_n_1821941.html www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antibiotics-linked-weight-gain-mice

Be the first to comment